Sunday, February 14, 2010

'Anonymity is no guarantee in online postings'

Excerpts from a Chicago Tribune story published today, where I was interviewed about the pitfalls of posting anonymous comments on blogs and other websites:

Write something threatening or defamatory and the mask of anonymity can be removed. It's technologically simple to track the source of a comment; the more difficult question is when it should be done. Add to the complicated stew of issues an Internet culture of free-wheeling commentary, and the results can be unpredictable.

"There are purists who think the Internet is a fundamentally different medium and that the old rules — that is, vetting letters to the editor — should not be applied to comments," says Jim Hopkins, a former reporter based in San Francisco who runs several media blogs. "I've been hit with the same criticism. If you limit these comments in any way, (critics say) you're engaging in censorship."

In a departure from past practice, I now review all comments before they get published, sometimes rejecting those that are unsuitable. How do you feel about that policy? Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.

[Image: today's Tribune, Newseum]

6 comments:

  1. I don't have a problem with it. Last time got a little too Wild West at times, and clearly contributed to your burn-out and temporary abandonment of the site. People who don't like it don't have to post here. You own the site, you set the rules. I never saw any evidence of censorship of legitimate comments, supportive or critical of Gannett, so I'm comfortable you're not engaging in such behind the scenes now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. People who hide behind anonymity and spew online ought to become reporters and write opinion pieces. Thanks for keeping this blog safe and informative.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous Shinonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I found wading through all the anti-gay posts and anti-Jim posts to be unnecessarily time-consuming, and without substance.

    This is better, and if it keeps Jim from another flameout (gay pun not intended), even better.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's your blog and you can do what you want to.

    I'm glad you weed out the spam. Just sorry it had to come to that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I know it takes more of your time, but I'm glad you're reading comments first. It keeps things on target. I'm coming here for information, not to wade through the rantings of a bunch of nut jobs.

    ReplyDelete

Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.